RSS Feed Sign-Up

Yesterday I had a dentist appointment. Nothing serious, but just a cleaning (and for you fans keeping score at home - NO CAVITIES). When I got unto the chair, playing on the TV was this ad for the Tobi Steamer so I didn't pay much attention to it. After a few minutes I looked up again and saw more ads for the Tobi Steamer which got me a little upset. Come on I'm a captive audience here so I stopped my dental hygienist and said "Why do I keep seeing an ad for the Tobi Cleaner?" "Is Dr. Goodkin getting a $5 kickback from every Tobi Steamer that the patients buy? That's a little unfair because I'm a captive audience"

After she stopped laughing with me, she called Dr. Goodkin into my room even though it wasn't time for me. BTW - Dr Goodkin is one of the top 5 nicest people you'll ever meet and a GREAT dentist. If you are in the Long Valley area you should stop in. Here's their website. After I yelled (jokingly), he said "No, we aren't taking kickbacks but I know exactly what you are talking about. It seems that Channel 4 runs this infomercial everyday at 11AM." So after some more jokes we flipped on MSNBC.

So, I was thoroughly confused that this wasn't a one time event and that NBC-NY
actually runs this infomercial more than a few times as Dr. Goodkin told me. What happened to some game shows or reality TV shows like some crappy judge or some talk show. Don't tell me that NBC actually figured out a new model for the 11AM slot. So I consulted the TV Guide and found such behemoths as Price is Right and The View in there but the rest of the channels looked pretty lame. Well maybe not as lame as a 30 minute commercial in the middle of the day.

Seriously, can't NBC figure out something else other than a commercial to run in that slot? I know it is probably making money for them, but WHAT's the point of having a TV station if all you do is show a commercial the whole time? I wonder at what point it costs NBC money to serve that ad for them?

Wouldn't they be better off putting a show in there, even if it is reruns and then use Google TV to fill their unsold inventory on commercials. Dr. Goodkin uses satellite so it might fall back to DirectTV for that, but you understand where I'm going. Seriously, how lame is daytime TV now? It is lamer than root canal. OUCH.

Now this is a new Google product I can get into. At first I thought it was a dog of a product like Google Print or a product like Google Audio that political campaigns couldn't use, but alas I was wrong when it comes to Google TV. I had a meeting in Crystal City and I came out of the meeting very impressed. Here's what I liked about it:

I can run TV on the Dish network for very little cost ($150 per day?)

The Dish network covers like 15% of the US

I can pick the channels as well as the content using what amounts to a searchable TV guide

It is an auction based CPM model where I get to name my own price and adjust accordingly; of course my ads may not run at the price I choose, but that's ok.

You only pay when the ad runs and according to the meeting, DVR playbacks are not included in the cost.

You get some great reporting from the TV buy
including where and when the ads ran, impressions, paid CPM, # impressions that watched the entire ad, and total/avg seconds viewed.

I walked away from that meeting very excited. This puts the power of TV, albeit on Dish Network only, into the hands of small advertisers. And, if you don't have any commercials, Google will give you a $2K credit to spend on building the ads if you agree to spend $2K per week for 4 weeks on Google TV.

If you have the money and don't get the attention you need from your media agency, you should give this a shot yourself. It is also great for testing content and ads on different shows before you go big nationally.

The only problems I can find with Google TV are that there is limited geo-targeting available today and it is just available on Dish. The geo-targeting is more problematic since it excludes local markets, but there might be a way to get around it by choosing a specific network (New England Sports Network), but that is a poor method for approximating geo-targeting. Other than that, I'm so pumped on Google TV that I might run my own ads!

PardonMyFrench,

Eric

BTW - I know I'm about a month behind on this, but I didn't think it was a big deal because of the problems we ran into with Google Audio. After the meeting last week, I'm a believer.

My beta invite finally came through for Hulu.com and I'm really into it. For the longest time, I really haven't been watching much prime time TV primarily because I didn't like sitting through bad shows, couldn't find the time to figure out what I should watch, and most of the time we watch shows that the entire family could watch. By the time the munchkins were a sleep, I was well on my way to a DVD for a movie or World of Warcraft. Now that is changing with Hulu.com. Here's why I really like Hulu.com

The video quality is near TV like; no more grainy videos or sound that is slightly off because the person who recorded the show used a video camera a few feet from their TV.

I get full episodes and clips; again no more viewing shows in 10 minute increments

There are a lot of premium shows to catch including The Office, The Family Guy, 30 Rock, and many more included WKRP in Cincinnati.

You can share, email, and make comments and while the community isn't as large as YouTube you have all of the tools there for your social networking habit.

Did I mention WKRP and a young Loni Anderson?

I can watch the TV shows any time I want and any where I am as long as I have access to a laptop or PC. I haven't tried watching anything on my Treo, but my guess is that I'll have the same trouble I always have when I watch video on Verizon's wireless network - it comes in but every 30 seconds or so the video buffers.

I don't need to buy TV shows on DVD to catch up; I still have the Sopranos on my holiday list, but that show is a little special.

Right now, Hulu.com is not bombarded with ads - sure every 5 minutes or so there is a 15 second inserted into the show, but it didn't annoy me, just seeing the same advertiser over and over again (Intel) was annoying. The site isn't loaded with banner or search ads either so it is nice and clean.

Sure Hulu.com doesn't have the community that YouTube has and it certainly doesn't have user generated content. However, for me, I like watching professional clips more so than user generated ones and if I want consumer content I know where to go - YouTube. Hulu differentiates itself from all of the other video sites on the internet with what they all desire - professional, copyrighted material. I doubt Hulu will eat much into YouTube's viewership, but it sure will help hasten the migration of watching professional shows from the big tube to the little screen. Plus, I wonder how this impacts copyright lawsuits in progress. Anyway, nicely done Hulu.

Yes I'm in a foul mood. The Yankees are down 2-0 and in game 3 they are losing 3-1 as I write this. And not only isn't that bad enough I can never find TBS on my DirectTV lineup, I can't stand their announcers, and their commercials for a major series like this is just a step above house ads. Pretty much the only reason I ever watched TBS was back about 15 years ago when you didn't have 57+ channels with nothing on and you could enjoy an Atlanta Braves game back when they had Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine pitching.

Speaking of house ads I am already fed up with those FrankTV ads. Are you? I actually think Frank Caliendo is funny and like other sports fan have enjoyed his impressions especially of John Madden. However, the frequency of these house ads are ridiculous. It is like the marketing geniuses at TBS forget to cap the frequency of these ads to something high and annoying like 10. Seriously, it feels like I see an ad for FrankTV after every other half inning. It is really annoying especially when you try and watch baseball live instead of via TiVo.

I don't know if the show is any good and it may be very funny, but I am so sick of these ads I will never watch this show. Couldn't care less and would just wish someone at TBS had a clue as to how to get a good frequency without pissing off a potential audience.

We've migrated to our shore home and of course the house we have doesn't have TiVo which is quite a rude awakening for my kids, especially my daughter. She has never watched any significant amount of TV without the use of TiVo which has been in my house for like 4 years.

Just the other day, she missed a part of a cartoon and asked my Mother to rewind it. My Mom said we can't which was met with boos and hisses from the kids. Wow, imagine if they had to get up to switch a channel or watch only about 5 stations. Anyway, speaking of rude awakenings, we've also had to endure TV commercials and these are my observations.

The new, new, new really it is new AT&T runs a lot of commercials for its wireless business. Sadly, I've seen ZERO ads around the iPhone since the launch which leads me to believe as a veteran of the old and better AT&T and as a veteran of wireless marketing that the folks that are in charge of determining what goes on air are worried about wasting (my guess, not what I feel) TV dollars on a very high priced phone that may not help them hit their objectives. Why else would AT&T stop running ads for the iPhone? BTW, if you think I'm just some dope blogger, guess again. I've participated in conversations just like this at the old AT&T.

I L-O-V-E the Maytag ads that are running right now. Not only are they funny, but they are far superior to the old Maytag ads. The old ones showed a sad repairman with nothing to do because the Maytag appliances never broke. However the new Maytag ads, in addition to reinforcing that they don't break down, now have the Maytag repairman fixing things that do break - like your cable system. Freaking brilliant.

I can't believe Hamburger helper still advertises on TV.

Transformers are EVERYWHERE including I think it was Burger King.

And those are all I remembered even though I was forced to watch commercials for the past week. Nothing else resonated or caused me to take any action. Without TiVo I was forced to endure hours of crap and all I have to show for it is AT&T wasting dollars promoting phones that are sub par to the iPhone, Maytag ads for someone that doesn't need their appliances right now, a food additive to help meatloaf taste better (I don't need it because my wife's double secret meatloaf recipe is yummy), and Transformers. That's it. It's too bad the Maytag repairman can't fix what ails the vast majority of TV advertisers - go od creatives that drive action.

What got me fired up on my train ride back from DC was when I read this article by Amy Schatz from the WSJ called Television Violence gains Focus in Congress. Amy wrote a good article, but what surprised me the most was that it was buried on page B4 in the bottom left almost like the Journal didn't think it was very important. What kills me the most about this crappy Kevin Martin idea is what they think should be censored or not. If this Rockefeller Censorship Bill would pass it would give new Censorship Czar Kevin Martin the ability to enforce rules on airing violent programming between 6 am and 10 PM when children could be watching. It would exempt sports, news, and documentaries.

IF THE FCC WANTS TO PROTECT KIDS IT SHOULD NOT EXEMPT ANY PROGRAMS. I
wonder why they decided it? It couldn't have anything to with a lobbyist or two could it?

NEWS IS THE MOST VIOLENT SHOW ON TV. Check out this link and picture from Channel 7 in NY for tonight. What's there? Beatings, Iraq war, kids dead in a car crash, police dog kills another dog. All great headlines for your pre-schooler right?

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON DOCUMENTARIES. THEY ARE VIOLENT TOO. WHY DID YOU THINK DAVID CHASE USED THEM IN THE SOPRANOS?

That's the problem with bills like this. The Government should not be intervening and deciding what is violent or not. They should set guidelines and ratings that inform parents about what they can expect. When the Government decides that News and Sports are exempt it is their attempt to control what you should see. Let me repeat this. NEWS IS THE MOST VIOLENT SHOW ON TV BECAUSE IT IS REAL.

As the folks over at televisionwatch.org have written 92% of parents believe they should be the ones who control the TV not the Government. There is a ton of information on their site including polls and tools for parents. Get involved. Do something other than lay on the couch and let Rockefeller and Martin control your TV. How about something simple as write your Senator? You can find the list and contact information at the NRSC.org website.

Yes, I'm about 5 days behind making this post, but other things caught my attention and I do have one full time jobs and a couple of side things that keeps me busy (BTW - that's why I don't consider myself a full-time blogger). Anyway, the NYTimes had an article called MySpace Mini-Episodes, Courtesy of Honda and I went through the entire article and test drove the TJ Hooker episode and I think this is an absolutely wonderful idea. Here's the basic idea:

Take a bunch of 70s/80s reruns like Charlie Angels, TJ Hooker, etc and edit them down to 4-6 minutes to be shown on the screen.

Each episode is carefully edited to keep the plot together all while making sure you get the general gist of the show

Stick an 8 second pre-roll commercial in front of the episode solely sponsored by Honda

And, bingo you have webified TV shows built for today's attention deficit disorder crowd of the internet

Seriously, it is brilliant. I can't really see it hurting DVD sales and to be blunt it may even help. How many of you are going to run out and buy the Facts of Life in DVD? (Did anyone else have a crush on Nancy McKeon besides myself while in school?) Plus it introduces these shows to a generation that will never see them because they've probably outlived
their TV syndication usefulness .

I watched the TJ Hooker episode and you could definitely get a feel for the show and the plot. That is, bad guy on the loose, James T Kirk chases him but fails at first, Heather Locklear make it look easy being sexy, and then Kirk fights the villain and wins in the end rescuing his partner. It was enjoyable, fast watching, virtually commercial free, and looked great on the little screen.

The only concerns I might have is limiting it to MySpace only for now and how Honda will judge success. The sponsorship for now is 6 figures and as the article mentions, Honda is trying to sell the Honda Fit. Also found in the NY Times article is this "Lauren Mehl, associate media director at RPA in Santa Monica, Calif.,
said the agency would evaluate the subsequent sponsorship opportunities
based on how the commercials perform their run on MySpace."

I wonder what Honda will deem success. It fits in with their positioning of their car, but other than boosting awareness and visits to the site, I think they'll have a hard time proving car sales are being generated from these ads, but maybe they have some other measurements.

This is clearly a homerun product and besides being available on the web, you can bet the format will find a home on your cell phone in the future as well as other online properties. Hopefully, more studios will follow the lead.

No, despite my rant from last night after getting screwed in the ending (yes I fall on that side of the debate), I did not drop HBO because of the Sopranos ending. I've been planning on dropping it for months now, but refused because of the Sopranos. Why?

Other than The Sopranos none of the other shows held my attention

Yes I do like Entourage and Curb Your Enthusiasm but neither one of those impact Americana like The Sopranos and besides, living in NJ you are required to watch it weekly.

The movies are outdated and if you really wanted to see one, you either bought the DVD or rented it via NetFlix

Check out the lineup for today, does anything on their really compel you to pay around $20 per month for it. I realize that they update the information, but I'm not afraid to show a continuously changing link because I think it will still prove my point day after day

Their premier sports, Boxing has so little impact on the Sports community that you are better off watching boxing reruns on ESPN Classic. How about Inside The NFL? If that isn't a complete waste of your time to see the previous week's clips and commentary that you can get any day on ESPN, than I don't know what is.

Back in the day, you had to own HBO if you wanted to see any decent movies. Now? There are so many things that vie for your attention that you can pass on it. The movies are useless unless you need to see the same movie over and over again and none of the shows except the ones mentioned above grabbed my attention and that includes Deadwood and 6 Feet Under.

The Sopranos besides being compelling TV year after year, was HBO's one holdover from an era when it was must-pay-for-subscription TV. It was the link to its glory days as a channel and sadly broadband, NetFlix, DVD sales, World of Warcraft, and the multitudes of viewing options has reduced this once proud channel to a monthly service charge on your cable bill that reminds me of AT&T's Carrier Cost Recovery Fee.

Oh, one final thought to everyone that thinks this was so brilliant of a move by HBO and Chase regarding the surprise ending. Will it stop HBO disconnects or increase subscriptions? I doubt it because what does the show ending have to do with selling the HBO franchise. It may help with DVD sales but that's at least 6 months away (my guess) where the cache of the non-ending will have worn off. All of that buzz and traffic? It may help David Chase and immortalize (if it wasn't already) The Sopranos, but HBO? Other than DVD sales, it won't provide help. Heck, A&E which plays the reruns will get more out of it.

During the last (I can't even call it a show), I thought about buying the disc sets, but not now.

I didn't mind Tony making peace with people including helping Bobby's kids, seeing Uncle Junior, Little Steven, Anthony Jr because I expected that

However, besides Phil getting whacked the rest of the episode was pretty boring

Heck, I wouldn't have minded the ending IF THE REST OF THE EPISODE WAS DECENT

But that ending was terrible. Leave it up to the viewer to decide? Come on. That was lame. I paused the show about 53 minutes into it and said to my wife, nothing can happen because he doesn't have enough time. 10 or so minutes of a setup for nothing...what a waste.

I have a much more detailed thought to describe what this ending was like but I can't go into it because some day my kids will read this blog. However, let's just say it involves something ending WAY before you planned it to while in the bedroom...

Look David Chase, we didn't need you to leave it up to us to figure out our own ending. That's not what we pay you for (yes via HBO). We want to be entertained by a professional. Probably the only thing good about this is The Sopranos can now live forever in user generated content and video. BA DA BING.

BTW: I dropped HBO this morning via DirecTV. It was fast and painless and completely automated. I wonder how many other people dropped it today?

PS: More updates from the Sopranos message board over at NJO.com. Besides angry people like myself, there seems to be three schools of thought on the end scene:

Tony Gets Shot: Here's the theory. Perception changes to Tony. The restaurant is loaded with enemies of Tony. Meadow's face when she walks in is upsetting because she sees Tony getting whacked by Phil's loyalists in the restaurant . Final proof is Tony and Bobby talking on the boat and Bobby says you never see it coming.

Tony Lives but in Fear: The guys in the room are representative of Tony being nervous the rest of his always looking for the hit that may come.

DVD Sales: DVD allows you to fill in the blank for one of four endings. If this happens this is the ultimate example of David Chase selling out!!

Anyway, still upset with anything but #2 above. I don't go with #1 because there seems to be WAY TOO MANY enemies in the NJ restaurant to coordinate that hit and Tony made peace with NY. Sure Phil's relatives would be upset, but who are they working for? Finally, this from a post from NJFan26:

This morning I heard an interview with Frank Vincent, the guy who plays
Phil. He said that the last scene was meant to symbolize that Tony
would have to live the rest of his life being paranoid about who is
walking in the door whether it is the FBI, a hit, or just anyone coming
to take him away our take him out. That is his ultimate punishment. He
can never relax without having to look over his shoulder.

Is David Chase brilliant and was the show over all these seasons brilliant? Yes and Yes. I still don't like the ending unless it was #2. Oh well.

Some more final thoughts for you folks that subscribe to #1. I replayed the ending on TiVo:

You don't see Meadow's face near the door. The last time you see her is running from her car with a very normal reaction

The Man in Member's Only Jacket as he is credited is Paolo Colandrea who was just picked for this episode and he's not saying what his role was

Yes, by now you know that The Sopranos is wrapping up this coming Sunday, but one of the
unsung heroes associated with the show has been The Star Ledger's Alan Sepinwall Monday morning column called Sopranos Rewind. Well up until recently it was printed in the paper edition of the Ledger every Monday, but now if you need need your Sepinwall fix on Monday you had to go online to his column. More on that in a second, first let me sing Sepinwall's praises.

The wrap up was essential reading for any real fan of the show. He gave honest reviews that told it like it was, unlike other reviewers that shilled for the show. Sepinwall broke down the plot, filled in blanks on the show, unraveled some of the show's quirks (ex, when a character gets killed they almost always wear white shoes, except for Paulie who always wears white), pointed out where characters have been or the last time you saw them, and most importantly tied recent events with shows from years past. Truly a must read every Monday morning.

That was until a few weeks ago. It seems Sepinwall was missing the deadlines when he wrote his review forcing diehard readers like myself to go to the website to get the scoop from the previous day's show. And, like most news stories it is better online. Besides the excellent summary, you got great feedback from the fans in the comment section; not the message boards which are unfiltered and as typical message boards go, filled mostly with arguments and the occasional curse. Comments like this can be found at the end of Sepinwall's story which adds a tremendous amount to the fanbase:

mediatext: "Paulie has already defected to Phil, Tony will find that out and will kill him. Tony,
desperate, alone and hunted by Phil, will reach to the FBI guys --or
they will reach him"

grappa:but I am starting to think the flip is coming from Tony. Agent
Harris has been in almost every episode the lap top screen in AJ's
room featuring a story on terrorism

seapointer:The difference with Tony is that he sought treatment
voluntarily for personal problems, and never hid the fact that his
criminal activities were continuing.

fordmail:I for one wanted to see Sil pay a price for the way he killed Ade like
a dog, instead we saw him meet his end fumbling for his gun "Fredo
Style". On the other hand, we saw one of the most likeable characters
(Bobby) taken out "Sonny Style".

jamcpa:The greatest impact that Chase could possibly make in the show's last
episode is for Tony to live on, without his Family or his family, with
the guilt of the loss of a loved one, ie. Meadow or AJ - similar to
Godfather III.

NJkenn: for those talking of the possibility of an eventual Sopranos movie, I
heard Frank Vincent (Phil Leotardo) interviewed this morning, and he
said that the rumor he keeps hearing is that, if a movie is to be made,
it will be a prequel.....Tony, though, having likely already begun changing his patterns as soon
as Harris told him about the possible hit, would be hardest one to
find, especially in a timely, coordinated fashion since he would be
specifically avoiding places like the Bing or Satriales

sonnysighed:But in the scene between T and Sil in T's garage, it becomes clear that
Phil may have known about the planned hit ahead of time, and cleared
out in advance. Which means it's likely that either Paulie or Patsi are
also "playing both sides of the fence" (get well, Sil! or RIP).

You get the idea. This is a pure example of social marketing at its best with the Sopranos community adding to the discussion. However, The Star Ledger could have "forced" readers earlier to the website instead of waiting until close to the end of the show. I'm sure they were trying to balance out paper sales with online sales, only demonstrating that local newspapers still have a ways to go in figuring out how to monetize their online traffic. Its time for the Ledger to push more and more content to the web only - they might as well start now because once someone figures out how to put a newspaper in a large, but light handheld that's convenient to read in the Men's room, their paper sales will be toast.

My final words on the show (who can resist) which I've been saying since the second episode of this season. Tony Soprano rides off into the sunset. He doesn't die and doesn't turn to the feds to protection. The last scene will be Tony and his family sitting at Bobby's lake house somewhere in upstate NY looking at Canada.

Alan Sepinwall's column will be the second most missed part of the long running HBO show. Thanks Alan for making your NJ reader's Monday morning extra special by making the show last just a little longer for all of us.

Did anyone catch Real Time with Bill Maher the other day? I know it was a re-broadcast from March 16th but I'm not an avid fan of the show and was only desperate to put something on TV Friday night. The reason I don't watch regularly is that the show gets most of its laughs from ripping on Republicans and when he has a decent one, Bill seems neither funny nor intelligent. Anyway, I wasn't trying to go out of my way to rip the show in general, only Dan Rather and Martha Raddatz.

In his panel segment with those two and Jason Alexander (who was very funny), Bill asked the panel what they think of media today. Dan Rather says that the internet is a supplement for news and even called it added value which prompted Raddatz to chime in an say that journalists don't get to determine what is the most important story of the day. Here watch for yourself courtesy of YouTube (and as a side note, pay attention to the fact that a) you didn't pay to see this and b) you probably won't pay in the future to subscribe to HBO to see it and c) who gets the advertising opportunity in this case).

Wow, that really shocked me. Added value or a supplement? First, sitting in front of a TV all day waiting for some smart person to come and tell me the news is so old fashioned , slow, and one-sided. The days of only have three networks to choose from has long since passed and deciding how someone gets their news is also wrong headed. Why TV or print? It doesn't matter really. All that matters is that the content you receive is reliable and if you wanted it delivered via the web than that's what's important. Plus, if a community of people decide that article A is more newsworthy than article B, than that's what should be put up front.

News shouldn't be decided by a few experts centrally located somewhere who really only care about fame, fortune, and advertising revenue. Dan Rather does have a valid point when he says that to be informed on an issue that you should read a variety of sources. I just don't think the variety should be the format it is delivered by, but the source of the news and story. During the day I read multiple sources of the same story and different views of the same story especially when it comes to politics. I personally find that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Hey Bill, newspaper readership is down because you get it faster elsewhere and you sometimes don't even pay for it. Plus, if you want to read the NY Times, but do it online you still can get the same news reporting. Finally, aren't you more well informed when you get to look at many different angles and have the community provide feedback on the story. One sided news is a thing of the past.

I saw this post entitled ZeFrank Nails it Again over at Jason Calacanis' blog and I thought to myself, why bother? Why should a successful video blogger have to move over to main stream media (MSM)? As Jason writes "Will someone give this guy a 30 minute slot on f-ing TV already." I also started thinking about Amanda Congdon and her departure from the popular video blog, Rocketboom (link purposely withheld because it is not the same without Amanda) and what her future might lead to. I'm sure a lot of people are pulling for her to land on MSM, but I keep thinking why? Why should popular video bloggers, podcasters, and the like want to end up on MSM?

I often test things out on my wife to see what she thinks.
She is not glued to the internet like I am, but is very net and PC savvy. When I showed her the controversy over Amanda leaving she was unimpressed. When a cool video comes along or I show her a page with a tremendous amount of visitors she often says "how do these people have the time?" As a final test, I watch my parents and my in-laws stick like glue to the evening news and the Weather Channel. That's when I start to think, is the whole world so different? You know there are a ton of people that still turn to TV and newspapers for the main news source and often they are older.

I had a district manager at AT&T in Vance LaVelle's consumer calling card division who was often at odds with the rest of the organization. I'd often say that David W. was in a basketball court shooting hoops wondering why everyone isn't here instead of playing baseball. And, that's what I think about when people write, when is MSM media going to pick up a guy like Zefrank? You know what they won't and I don't think that is so clueless on their part. The people that love him and Amanda are online viewers and are the same people that get their news from the internet.

They should keep plugging away without the constraints of TV. Sure, they may be missing some dollars right now, but my gut tells me that in the long run they'll be better off. See with more broadband penetration and younger people that don't view the Evening News with Walter Cronkite as their only source, the mass population will join these already built internet celebrities. People will join the community rather than move it back to TV. I don't think they should want to move over to MSM, they instead should wait for the masses to join them.

PardonMyFrench,

Eric

P.S. No Jason I'm not trying to pick a fight nor am I being overly negative!!

Do you think that right before the last T-Rex died that he knew it was over or did it just become a pre-historic ostrich, sticking his head in the dirt that would soon become our oil? That's what I think when I read this article over at MediaPost called ABC Looks Beyond Upfront to DVR, Commercial Ratings Issues which includes an interview with ABC's President of Advertising Sales Mike Shaw.

Does anyone really believe this strategy of forcing people to watch ads? I guess Mike Shaw can't wait for Phillips to build a TV that is commercial proof. My guess is he would give it away to boost sales. Seriously, do you know anyone that doesn't ignore or fast forward through commercials unless they are being aired on the SuperBowl?

Too busy to read the article? How about these kernels of wisdom:

"I would love it if the MSOs, during the
deployment of the new DVRs they're putting out there, would disable the
fast-forward [button]," Shaw said.

"I'm not so sure that the whole issue really
is one of commercial avoidance," Shaw said. "It really is a matter of
convenience--so you don't miss your favorite show."

"People can understand in order to have convenience and on-demand (options), that you can't skip commercials"

Look I'm getting sick just typing those quotes. It is a warped sense of strategy. Why not handcuff people to their couches and force them to watch lousy commercials so ABC can sell at a premium. Look, people avoid ads all of the time even without having to skip them. People read books, get something to drink, and even surf the internet.

Whether you are selling advertising space on TV, radio, or the internet it is all about content. If the content is better than you'll have an audience and if the ads are interesting people will pay attention. The fact is people have been ignoring ads for years, it is only now that marketers can measure how often they are being skipped, so that cats out of the bag.

Welcome to the digital enabled world of 2006. Perhaps someone should remind ABC that you need to adapt or you'll end up in someone's fuel tank.

In Monday's Wall Street Journal there was an article called Local TV Stations Struggle to Adapt as Web Grabs Viewers, Revenue which I found very interesting, if not for the very long title. Basically it talks about how buying a local TV station is not as cracked up as it used to be as the web has grabbed viewership, especially from the local news segment.

In the past, people got their news from their local TV station (6PM or 11PM)
which is relatively cheap to produce while using the main programming to grab viewership. You remember that model right? Watch Law and Order and then stick around to check out the news and weather. How many of you can still name your favorite weather person or sports caster (Let's go to the video tape).

Well, according to the Journal that model may not be playing out so well anymore. I don't know about you, but I can't remember the last time I sat around waiting up to 11PM to get news. If I want news immediately, ummm, I go to the internet and see what is going on - that's especially true for sports and weather. Heck, weather.com turns me into the same weather bunny that appears at 11PM and if I want to watch TV then (ok - maybe the bunny reference is stretching the truth a bit :-)

What's a local news station supposed to do? You can't stream the video of the latest TV shows because all of the major networks are already doing that and running reruns online runs into the same problem. The best thing to do is go back to the future.

They should stick with what worked well in the past - proprietary local news. They can still produce the local news content, but instead of just relying on TV, stream it online and build your content out on your website. You can also start an online community with blogs, wikis, social, etc that only your local audience will really be interested in. Heck, you can even throw in a Meetup strategy. Then with traffic get your local businesses, like the local drugstore to advertise. Today, these advertisers don't have a viable, cost effective alternative for advertising online because they can't rely just on IP targeting to grab their local consumers. Basically, build on the local community, provide the content to keep them, and get the advertisers to join in the fun.

Yes it looks like a sad state for local TV stations who bought into an old model that may not work as well in the past. Instead of sitting around wondering where the traffic went to, try joining the conversation online. If you can't beat the movement, join it. Local TV stations might actually take the battle to the local newspapers.

You can read the articles for yourself and draw your own conclusions, but let me point out a few interesting factoids found in the above:

The ads will not be skippable and will be specifically designed for the web

The shows will be available for free the day after they air on TV

The shows don't appear to be available for download devices so people that want to watch them on their iPOD will still have to pay a fee up to $1.99 per show.

People that miss their favorite shows (and who don't have a DVR) can catch them on the web for free

According to Albert Chen, EVP of Disney-ABC TV Group, technologies for moving video between PCs and TVs are still too complicated. "We can certainly provide the content, but at the end of the day it's about how to make it easy for consumers."

In the same Wall Street Journal from today, there was another article called Sony, Samsung Bet Big on LCD-TV Demand that you probably missed, but thank goodness, yours truly found it for you. The article talks about how Samsung and Sony are betting that the market for big TV (more than 40 inches) will grow sharply. Big TVs, HDTV, etc are hot consumer electronics right?

Hmmm - let me throw a little cold water on the BIG Disney announcement. The TV shows and commercials will be retro-fitted for the web, but the Sonys of the world are building bigger and higher quality TV. Doesn't something have to give here? (TV reference - I'm in this contest and something has to give, right)

You know what I think? This is all about the last few feet to the TV box and until someone figures out how to get great quality internet broadcasts on those big fancy beautiful TVs, this will be confined to mobile viewers. Sure, if you are traveling or stuck in an airport or a long boring meeting, you can catch your show on your laptop.

Personally, I'm betting that until you can get that last few feet to the TV set issue solved, this is all about shrinkage. When I'm home, I have my BIG TV set with a DVR and when I'm traveling I have the small screen. Anything in between is just a waste of time for now. Enjoy the big announcement, at least someone is trying to move in the right direction.

Stuff

Search

Copyright 2005-09 by Eric Frenchman LLC. All content on Pardonmyfrench.net, pardonmyfrench.typepad.com and EricFrenchman.com, including text, graphics, logos, and images, and the selection and arrangement thereof, is the exclusive property of Eric Frenchman LLC or its licensors and is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. All trademarks appearing on Pardonmyfrench.net, pardonmyfrench.typed.com, and ericfrenchman.com are the property of their respective owners. All articles posted are intended for the personal, non-commercial use of Pardonmyfrench.net, pardonmyfrench.typed.com, and ericfrenchman.com visitors, provided, however, that all copyright and other proprietary notices displayed with such articles are fully retained. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.